Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P vs C.R.Premi @ Chape Ram & Others on 11 January, 2024
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur, Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Appeal No.609 of 2000 a/w Cr. Appeal Nos.
267 and 268 of 2020, Cr. Appeal No.111 to 115 of
2021 and Cr. Appeal No.581 of 2023
Reserved on : 28.12.2023
.
Decided on: 11.01.2024
1. Cr. Appeal No.609 of 2000
State of H.P. ...... Appellant
Versus
C.R.Premi @ Chape Ram & others .... Respondents
2. Cr. Appeal No.267 of 2020
of
State of H.P. ...... Appellant
Versus
C.R.Premi @ Chape Ram .... Respondents
3.
rt
Cr. Appeal No.268 of 2020
State of Himachal Pradesh
Versus
...... Appellant
Balbir Singh Katail and others .... Respondents
4. Cr. Appeal No.111 of 2021
State of H.P. ...... Appellant.
Versus
C.R.Premi @ Chape Ram & others .... Respondents
5. Cr. Appeal No.112 of 2021
State of H.P. ...... Appellant.
ersus
C.R.Premi @ Chape Ram & others .... Respondents
6. Cr. Appeal No.113 of 2021
State of H.P. ...... Appellant.
Versus
C.R.Premi @ Chape Ram & others. .... Respondents
7. Cr. Appeal No.114 of 2021
State of H.P. ...... Appellant.
Versus
C.R.Premi @ Chape Ram & others .... Respondents
::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS
2
8. Cr. Appeal No.115 of 2021
State of H.P. ...... Appellant.
Versus
C.R.Premi @ Chape Ram & others. .... Respondents
.
9. Cr. Appeal No.581 of 2023
State of H.P. ...... Appellant.
Versus
C.R.Premi @ Chape Ram & others. .... Respondents
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
of
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge
Whether approved for reporting1 : Yes.
For the Appellant(s):
rt Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Additional Advocate General.
For Respondents: Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ravi
Tanta and Mr. Varun Chauhan, Advocate, for the
respective respondents.
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Above captioned Criminal appeals, lay challenge to judgments dated 11.4.2000, 31.07.2019 and 01.08.2019 passed by learned Special Judge(Forests) Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in Corruption case No.34-S/7 of 88/86, Session Trial RBT Nos. 40-S/7 of 1988/86, 35-S/7 of 1988/86, 36-S/7 of 1988/86, 37-S/7 of 1988/86, 38-S/7 of 1988/86, 39-S/7 of 1988/86, 41-S/7 of 1988/86 and 42-S/7 of 1988/86, respectively, whereby all the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the accused), came to be acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 379, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471, 218, 167 of IPC, Sections 41, 42 of Indian Forest Act, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of 1 Whether Reporters of local newspaper are permitted to see the judgment ?
::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 3Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 12 of H.P. Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1982 read with Section 120-B of IPC.
2. Though, nine number of FIRs, in total, were registered against the .
accused and separate trials were conducted in all the FIRs, but since facts leading to lodging of FIR are common in all the cases, as detailed hereinabove' and same were decided on the basis of one set of evidence in terms of order dated 24.08.1987 passed in Cr. Appeal No.40/1987, which was further upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP, this Court after having clubbed all the appeals, of heard the same together and now are being disposed of vide common judgment.
3. rt Before giving separate table of each FIRs, facts which are common in all the FIR's are being taken note hereinbelow:-
4. Case of the prosecution initiated against the accused is based upon secret information received by Sh. Prem Prakash Sethi, SI/SHO, police Station, Enforcement, South Zone, Shimla, wherein he disclosed that Kewal Ram Sharma, R/o Mandhochali, Pargana Shili, Tehsil Chopal had purchased 166 trees in Chak Koti, Shila Block in Forest Division, Chopal from local Zamindars and further sold the same to M/s Mishru Mal, R/o Pandrara in the year, 1982.
Above named person disclosed to the police that Kewal Ram Sharma in connivance with Forest and Revenue Officials conducted wrong demarcations and marked 158 trees of Kail and 1 tree of Rai in government forest to give peculiar advantage to contractors and thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs. 2, 45, 692/- to the State of Himachal Pradesh. After receipt of aforesaid secret information, investigating agency got the private areas in which the trees were shown to have been marked, demarcated from Revenue Official namely, Sh.
::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 4Chandermani to ascertain the correctness of demarcation allegedly given by Parmanand (Kanungo) while marking the trees. After obtaining the record from D.F.O, Chopal and other records of Revenue Department, demarcation was .
also got conducted in Chak Koti, Shila Block, which disclosed that only 7 trees were felled from the private land and 159 trees were found illicitly felled from the government land. In the aforesaid background, a case under Sections 379, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC, 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Section 33, 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act was registered of at police Station South Zone Shimla vide FIR No.21/83 dated 16.09.1983.
5. Case was investigated by Inspector, Mohammad Yakub and Inspector, rt Shakti Chand, who for ascertaining the demarcation, hired the services of Revenue Officials, namely Chandermani and Vishnu Dutt and got the fresh demarcation conducted in the years 1983, 1984 and 1985, respectively. On the basis of investigation, prosecution found that accused, namely Kewal Ram Chauhan, Ex.MLA and his son Varinder Chauhan and Mishru Mal entered into a criminal conspiracy in the year, 1981 in Chopal area to the effect that private sale work would be done in Shilla Forest, Throach Range, Chopal Forest Division in the name of Mishru Mal, but said work would actually be managed by accused Kewal Ram Chauhan and his son Varinder Chauhan and Mishru Mal would be given commission for the use of his name. In furtherance of aforesaid conspiracy, accused, named hereinabove, associated Kewal Ram Sharma, Dharam Chand, Yashpal, Gauri Mal and Bhup Singh S/o Jalpu Ram, Bhup Singh S/o Dheeraj Singh, Charan Dass, Hari Dass, Balak Ram and Sukh Chain Singh, who while actively conniving with the accused Kewal Ram Chauhan and his son Varinder Chauhan, fabricated false applications and ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 5 affidavits of Zamindars to show that they have sold the trees from their land to accused Kewal Ram Sharma. On the basis of forged and false applications, accused namely, Varinder Chauhan and Mishru Mal, approached the then .
D.F.O., Chopal namely, C.R. Premi for permission to grant demarcations and felling order of trees for the marked trees allegedly purchased from the private owners. Accused C.R. Premi, the then, D.F.O. granted permissions for demarcation as well as for felling of trees. All the accused, named hereinabove, in connivance with the Forest and Revenue officials, namely Chattar Singh, of Balak Ram, and Charan Dass gave incorrect demarcations and marked 159 trees on the government land adjacent to the land of private owners. Besides rt above, accused also recorded false certificates on the marking list, which was signed by the concerned Forest and Revenue Officials. The lists were shown to have contained the hammer marked 1122 of Chatter Singh with which the trees were marked. As per investigation, no proper procedure was adopted for demarcation and no date was fixed for demarcation. During investigation, Zamindars, who had allegedly sold the trees standing on their land to the accused were also not present and Demarcating Officer, namely Parma Nand (Kanungo) in connivance with the Forest Officials Chattar Singh (A.C.F), Padam Singh (B.O), Charan Dass(Forest Guard) and other arrayed accused persons did not carry out the demarcation properly and showed the government forest as private land. On the basis of false demarcation and marking list of trees, accused C.R.Premi, the then. D.F.O., accorded felling permission without verifying the facts and pursuant to such felling order, accused illegally and illicitly felled and removed 159 trees from the government land.
::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 66. As per the prosecution, Virender Singh Chauhan remained present when the illicit felling was in progress and Kewal Ram Chauhan used to supervise the private sale work in the name of Mishru Mal. Prosecution also alleged that .
Kewal Ram Chauhan after becoming MLA in the year, 1982 managed the posting of Sukh Chain Mehta in Throch Range on the condition that he would not obstruct the felling of illicit trees under the grab of private sale. D.F.O., C.R.Premi did not follow the proper procedure while issuing orders of demarcation, marking and felling permission and while issuing the export of permit.
7. Export permit No.69/82/83 was issued by DFO for 9634 scants from rt Bharnu to Yamuna Nagar in favour of Mishru Mal, but timber was unloaded at Government Depot, Mantruvala without valid permit. Accused Virender Chauhan submitted application on behalf of Mishru Mal to Depot Manager, Yamuna Nagar, for release of 9634 scants and on such application, release permit No.100/82/83 was issued in favour of Mishru Mal for the above said scants, which were illegally transported from Mantruvala to Yamuna Nagar to Depot of M/s Payare Lal Joginder Lal. During investigation, prosecution found that M/s Payare Lal Joginder Lal revealed that 26028 scants were received by the firm from May, 1982 to June, 1983 and this timber was received in the name of Mishru Mal and payment qua the same was received by Bhup Singh, Munshi of Kewal Ram Chauhan and Virender Singh Chauhan. DFO C.R Premi issued export permit No. 1/83/84 on 19.04.1984 for 7206 scants and lateron issued corrigendum for 5185 scants in favour of Bhup Singh, who was appointed as Sub-Agent in violation of HP Forest Produce Regulation Trade Act,1982. As per prosecution, accused Mishru Mal was not the registered contractor and his ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 7 khudan and property mark were also not registered with the Forest Department as required under the law.
8. In the aforesaid background, after registration of FIR. No.21/83, 8 more .
FIR Nos. 22/83, 23/83, 24/83, 25/83, 26/83, 27/83, 29/83 and 30/83 were registered qua illicit felling in Chak Shilla Tiprog, Village Koti, Koti, Navi, Darbar and Mundli in the same Forest Division. All the FIR's were investigated and separate challans were presented in the court of learned Special Judge.
Accused namely Mishru Mal, Ratti Ram and Sukh Chain Singh were though of named as accused in the challan, but were granted pardon by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla. Since witnesses were common, accused, named in the rt FIRs, as detailed hereinabove, filed an application, praying therein to club all the cases before Special Judge (Forests), Shimla. Learned Special Judge vide order dated 4th April, 1987 ordered that no prejudice would be caused to the accused, if the trials in respect of the above said FIRs are held separately.
9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid order passed by learned Special Judge, accused filed a criminal revision before this Court, which came to be registered as Criminal Revision No.40/87. Vide order dated 24.08.1987, this Court while ordering for clubbing of 9 FIR's, directed trial Court to hold single trial for all FIRs. Aforesaid order was laid challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Revision No. 102 of 1987, titled Kewal Ram Chauhan versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. The Hon'ble Apex Court while refusing to entertain Special Leave Petition, directed that if a witness is for a number of charges, his examination will be conducted once and that may be used for all the cases. In the aforesaid background, evidence was ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 8 recorded in only one case i.e. Sessions trials bearing No. 2-S/7 of 1986 equivalent to Sessions trial No. 34-S/7 of 1988/86.
10. Learned Special Judge disposed of aforementioned Sessions trials .
through separate judgments dated 11.04.2000, whereby he acquitted the accused persons, named in all the FIRs. The State of Himachal Pradesh filed an appeal against the judgments of acquittal dated 11.04.2000 before this Court, which vide judgment dated 18.12.2010 passed in all Criminal Appeals set aside the judgment of acquittal and remanded the cases to trial Court with of the direction to record the statements of accused afresh under Section 313 Cr.
P. C. and to dispose of the cases afresh.
11. rt In the main Trial No. 34-S/7 of 1988/86, similar judgment was passed by this Court in Cr. Appeal No. 609 of 2000, but accused namely, Bhoop Singh, preferred Cr. Appeal 1497 of 2011 in the Hon'ble Apex Court, which, vide order dated 11.07.2011 set aside the judgment passed by this Court in Cr. Appeal No. 609 of 2000, thereby remitting the case to this Court for fresh consideration on merits on the record already available before it. However, other 8 Session Trials were remanded back to the court of learned Special Judge, who after having recorded the fresh statements of accused persons, acquitted all the accused vide impugned judgments.
12. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgments of acquittal recorded by learned Special Judge vide judgments laid challenge in the above captioned appeals, appellant-State has approached this Court in the instant appeals.
13. Though, relevant facts, which are common in all the FIRs, have been already taken note of, but for more clarity, it would be apt to take note of all the ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 9 FIRs separately, especially to ascertain the names of the accused as well as their role in the commission of offence alleged to have been committed by them:
i. In FIR No. 21/83, C.R. Premi alias Chape Ram (DFO)(since deceased), Balak Ram (BO), Charan Dass (Forest Guard), Kewal .
Ram Sharma, Dharam Chand, Yash Pal, Kewal Ram Chauhan, Virender Singh and Bhoop Singh are the accused. The allegation was that accused, by hatching criminal conspiracy, felled 159 trees in Chak Koti and tiprog from Government land under the garb of felling trees from private land and caused loss to the State.
of ii. In FIR No.22/83, C.R Premi (DFO) Since deceased, Balbir Singh Katiak (Range officer), Virender Chauhan (Actual Beneficiary), Kewal Ram Chauhan (Actual beneficiary) Since deceased, Bhup rt Singh S/o Dheeraj Singh(Sub Agent), (petty contractor), Bhup Singh S/o Jalpu Kedar Singh (alleged identifier), Gauri Mal (petty contractor), Charan Dass(Forest guard )Since deceased, Hari Dass (Field Kanungo) and Balak Ram(Since deceased) were arrayed as an accused. The allegations of the prosecution against the above said accused persons are that they in furtherance of criminal conspiracy felled 37 trees from Chak Navi Shilla Block, Daroch Range, Chopal and accused Bhoop Singh and Gauri Mal collected revenue papers of local Zamindars. The affidavits of the local Zamindars were got signed from the concerned Zamindars at their places and got attested the same from Balbir Singh Oath Commissioner in their absence and thereafter, trees were got marked and felled from the government land under grab of private sale in connivance with Government and Forest Officials.
iii. In FIR No. 23/83, C.R. Premi (DFO)( since deceased), Durga Dass (Block Officer), Deep Ram (Block Officer (Since deceased), Chet Ram (Petty Contractor), Bir Singh (Petty Contractor) (Since deceased), Yash Pal (alleged identifier), Padam Singh (BO)(since deceased), Hari Singh (Forest Guard) (since ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 10 deceased), Parma Nand (Kanungo) (since deceased) and Kewal Ram Chauhan (alleged beneficiary) (since deceased) are the accused. The allegation in this FIR is that wrong demarcation of private land was carried out and trees were marked in the .
absence of Zamindars by M/s Bir Singh Chet Ram, in connivance with Padam Singh (BO), Hari Singh (Forest Guard) and Parmanand (Kanungo) and marked 27 trees of Cheel in Government forest to give pecuniary advantage to the contractors and thereby caused wrongful loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.29,370/-. It is alleged that private sale files were of got falsely prepared by showing trees on private land whereas, actually the trees were marked and felled from the Government land.
iv. In FIR No.24/83, C.R Premi (DFO) Since deceased, Sagru rt Ram(Deputy Ranger) Since deceased, Virender Chauhan (Actual Beneficiary), Kewal Ram Chauhan (Actual beneficiary) Since deceased , Bhup Singh S/o Dheeraj Singh(Sub Agent), Bhup Sing S/o Jalpu(petty contractor), Kedar Singh (alleged identifier), Gauri Mal (petty contractor), Charan Dass(Forest Guard )Since deceased, Hari Dass (Field Kanungo) and Balak Ram (Since deceased) were arrayed as an accused. In the aforesaid FIR, allegations of the prosecution against the above said accused persons are that they in furtherance of criminal conspiracy felled 20 trees from Chak Koti Shilla Block , Daroch Range , Chopal. Bhoop Singh and Gauri Mal collected revenue papers of local Zamindars. The affidavits of the local Zamindars were got signed from the concerned Zamindars at their places and got attested the same from Balbir Singh Oath Commissioner in their absence. Accused Kedar Singh wrongly identified the Zamindars before the oath commissioner in their absence, and thereafter trees were got marked and felled from the government land under grab of private sale in connivance with Government and Forest Officials.
::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 11v. In FIR No. 25/83, person namely C.R Premi (DFO) Since deceased, Sagru Ram(Deputy Ranger ) Since deceased, Virender Chauhan (Actual Beneficiary), Kewal Ram Chauhan (Actual beneficiary) Since deceased, Bhup Singh S/o Dheeraj .
Singh(Sub Agent), Bhup Sing S/o Jalpu(petty contractor), Kedar Singh (alleged identifier), Gauri Mal (petty contractor),. Charan Dass (Forest Guard) Since deceased, Hari Dass (Field Kanungo) and Balak Ram (Since deceased) were arrayed as an accused.
Allegations of the prosecution against the aforesaid accused persons that they in furtherance of criminal conspiracy felled 257 of trees from Chak Darbar Shilla Block, Throach Rang , Chopal. Bhoop Singh and Gauri Mal collected revenue papers of local Zamindars. The affidavits of the local Zamindars were got signed from the concerned Zamindars at their places and got attested rt the same from Balbir Singh Oath Commissioner in their absence. Kedar Singh wrongly identified the Zamindars before the Oath Commissioner in their absence and thereafter, trees were got marked and felled from the government land under grab of private sale in connivance with government and forest officials.
vi. FIR No.26/83, persons namely, C.R. Premi (DFO) Since deceased, Chattar Singh (ACF) Since deceased, Virender Chauhan (Actual Beneficiary),. Kewal Ram Chauhan (Actual beneficiary) Since deceased, Gohru ram (petty contractor), Chandan Singh (petty contractor) Since Deceased, Bhup Singh S/o Dheeraj Singh(Sub Agent), Kedar Singh (alleged identifier), Charan Dass(Forest Guard )Since deceased, Parma Nand (Field Kanungo) and Balak Ram (Since deceased) were arrayed as an accused. In the aforesaid FIR, allegations of the prosecution against the aforesaid accused are that they in furtherance of criminal conspiracy felled 12 trees from Chak Shilla Block, Throach Range, Chopal. Accused Chandan Singh and Gohru Mal collected revenue papers of local Zamindars. The affidavits and applications were got written from some unknown person by ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 12 accused Chandan Singh and Gohru Ram, stating therein that trees have been sold to them by the Zamindars. The affidavits of the local Zamindars were got signed from the concerned Zamindars at their places and got attested the same from Balbir .
Singh Oath Commissioner in their absence by producing some other persons, who were wrongly identified by Gohru Mal before the Oath Commissioner in their absence. Thereafter, trees were got marked and felled from the government land under the grab of private sale in connivance with Government and Forest Officials. M/S Chandan Singh and Gohru mal were not of registered with the Forest Department to do the sale work. vii. FIR No.27/83 persons namely, C.R. Premi (DFO) Since deceased, Sargu Ram (Deputy Ranger) Since deceased, Charan Dass (Forest Guard) Since deceased, Hari Dass (Field Kanungo) rt Since deceased, Virender Chauhan (Actual Beneficiary), Kewal Ram Chauhan (Actual beneficiary) Since deceased, Bhup Singh (intermediary), Gauri Mal (intermediary), Bhup Singh S/o Dheeraj Singh(Sub Agent) and Balak Ram (Since deceased) were arrayed as an accused. Allegations against the aforesaid accused persons are that they in furtherance of criminal conspiracy felled 50 trees from Chak Shilla Block, Throach Range, Chopal. M/s Bhup Singh Gauri Mal collected revenue papers of Khasra No. 8 and 18 of Masha S/o Shivu of Mundli in Chak Shilla. Bhup Singh accused S/o Jalpu Ram purchased stamp paper in his name from Jalam Singh, Stamp Vendor, and prepared the document, stating therein that the trees has been sold to him from M/s Bhup Singh Gauri Mal by Panu Ram and procured his affidavit in his absence. The Affidavit was neither signed by Panu Ram and not got attested from Oath Commissioner. M/s Bhup Singh Gauri Mal went to the house of Panu RAM and asked him to sell the trees and to sign the affidavit and application for demarcation to which he refused. The private sale case was taken to DFO, Chopal alongwith other ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 13 private case and the DFO without verifying and proper scrutiny of private scale case issued the marking orders. Thereafter, trees were got marked and felled from the government land under grab of private sale in connivance with Government and Forest .
Officials. M/s Bhup Singh Gauri mal were not registered with the Forest Department to do the sale work.
viii. FIR No. 29/83 persons namely, C.R. Premi (DFO) Since deceased, Chattar Singh (Deputy Ranger) Since deceased, Charan Dass (Forest Guard) Since deceased, Parmanand (Field Kanungo) Since deceased, Virender Chauhan (Actual of Beneficiary), Kewal Ram Chauhan (Actual beneficiary) Since deceased, Chandan Singh (intermediary), Gohroo Ram (intermediary), Bhup Singh S/o Dheeraj Singh(Sub Agent), Balak Ram (Since deceased) and Padam Singh (since deceased) were rt arrayed as an accused. Allegations against all the above said accused persons are that they in furtherance of criminal conspiracy felled 120 trees from Chak Koti, Shilla Block, Throach Range, Chopal. M/s Chandan Singh and Gahroo Ram collected revenue papers of Khasra No. 165 of Hira Singh, Khasra No 134 of Dhani Ram and Debu Ram, Khasra No. 139 of Dhirju and Rupu, Khasra No. 143 of Jhagun, Khasra No. 128 of Sita Ram and Khetu, Khasra No. 133 of Jalmi, Khasra No. 109 of Jhaun, Khasra No. 146/150 of Giaru, Khetu, Khasra No. 138 of Jamnu, Khasra No.130/132/137 of Masha etc, Khasra No. 108 Rania, Khasra No. 134 of Jhaun, Khasra No. 118 of Masha Chak Shilla. Chandan Singh, Gahroo Ram purchased stamp paper and got them signed in their homes and procured his affidavit in their absence. The Affidavits were got attested from the Oath Commissioner Balbir Singh in their absence by producing some other persons. It was further alleged that Hera Singh expired before 1976, Jamnu expired in 1978, Dheju expired in 1972, Masha expired in 1976 and Ramu expired before 1947 apart from the fact that the other Zamindars alleged to have sold the trees ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 14 namely, Jamli, Jhangan, Jhaun, Tangiya and Gangiya also expired before the date of which the documents were prepared. Further allegations were that on the basis of these false documents, the private sale case was taken to DFO, Chopal .
alongwith other private case and the DFO without verifying and proper scrutiny of private scale case issued the marking orders after demarcation. Thereafter, trees were got marked and felled from the government land under grab of private sale in connivance with Government and Forest Officials. M/s Chandan Singh Gahroo Ram were not registered with the Forest of Department to do the sale work.
ix. FIR No.30/83 person namely, C.R Premi (DFO) Since deceased, Balbir Singh Kataik (Deputy Ranger), Sagroo Ram (since deceased), Charan Dass (Forest Guard) Since deceased, Balak rt Ram (Since deceased), Hari Das (since deceased), Kewal Ram Chauhan (Actual beneficiary) Since deceased, Varinder Chauhan (Actual beneficiary), Bhup Singh S/o Dheraj Singh(Sub Agent), Bhoop Singh S/o Jalpu, Gauri Mal (intermediary) and Kedar Singh (intermediary) were arrayed as an accused. Allegations of the prosecution that all the above said accused persons in furtherance of criminal conspiracy felled trees from the Government land from Chak Mundli, Shilla Block, Throach Range, Chopal. M/s Bhoop Singh and Gauri Mal collected revenue papers of Khasra Nos. 61, 66, 24.32 of Parma Nand etc. Khasra No. 389 of Parsa, Khasra No. 7 of Dhania, Khasra No. 411, 417 of Puria, Khasra No.379/381/382 of Rania, Khasra No. 395 of Jhunkroo. Bhoop Singh Gauri Mal purchased stamp paper and got them signed in their homes and procured their affidavit in their absence. The Affidavit were got attested from Oath Commissioner Balbir Singh in their absence by producing some other persons, who were wrongly identified by Kedar Singh. Further allegations were that on the basis of these false documents, the private sale case was taken to DFO, Chopal ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 15 alongwith other private case and the DFO without verifying and proper scrutiny of private scale case issued the marking orders after demarcation and thereafter trees were got marked and felled from the government land under grab of private sale in .
connivance with Government and Forest Officials. M/s Bhoop Singh Gauri Mal were not registered with the Forest Department to do the sale work.
14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.
15. Precisely, the grouse of the appellant-State as has been highlighted in of the grounds of appeals and further canvassed by Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Additional Advocate General, is that Court below while passing the rt judgments of acquittal in all the cases has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its right perspective and has drawn absolutely unwarranted conclusion, which is otherwise not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned Additional Advocate General besides referring to statements of material prosecution witnesses, vehemently argued that learned Special Judge has fallen in grave error in law by discarding the demarcations conducted by the competent Revenue Officers during investigation. He argued that bare perusal of demarcation reports placed on record, clearly reveal that demarcations were got conducted strictly in conformity with the instructions issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, to establish that trees were felled illegally by the accused persons from the government land in connivance with the Forest Officials and Revenue Officials, but yet court below without there being any cogent and convincing evidence, proceeded to record a finding that demarcation got conducted by the investigating agency to establish illegal felling from the government land was not in accordance with law. Learned ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 16 Additional Advocate General further argued that trial court below failed to appreciate the oral evidence as well as supportive documents on the point of criminal conspiracy and as such, reached at a wrong conclusion that fact of .
criminal conspiracy has not been established. He submitted that evidence of two approvers clearly proves the case of the prosecution, but that was not appreciated in its right perspective by learned trial Court. While referring to statement of Mishru Mal(PW-2), who though turned hostile, learned Additional Advocate General attempted to argue that aforesaid witness supported the of allegations of the prosecution that accused, named in the FIRs, firstly fabricated and forged the documents and thereafter, in connivance with the Revenue rt Officials illegally felled the trees from the government land. While referring to statement made by Sukh Chain Singh (PW-10), learned Additional Advocate General argued that above named approver did not turn hostile and it is evident from his statement that he was pressurized not to disclose the truth. He submitted that if the statements of two approvers namely, Mishru Mal (PW-2) and Sukh Chain Singh (PW-10) are read in conjunction with the supportive/exhibited documents, it clearly establishes the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record that accused Kewal Ram Chauhan and Virender Singh Chauhan felled trees from the government land illicitly and the findings to contrary returned by learned trial Court are not sustainable in the eye of law being contrary to the evidence on record.
16. Learned Additional Advocate General further argued that conclusion drawn by learned Special Judge on the point of preparation of marking lists is also contrary to the evidence on record. He further submitted that there is ample ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 17 evidence on record to prove that lists were prepared by accused persons in connivance with their co-accused to cause wrongful loss to the State and wrongful gain to themselves. He submitted that lists were fabricated, forged and .
false and were prepared by the Revenue and Forest Officials intentionally to give logical end to the criminal conspiracy. He submitted that the lists were prepared without verifying the exact position on the spot and on the basis of lists felling orders were illegally issued in utmost haste. He submitted that after issuing felling orders, export permits were issued without following the rules, of instructions and guidelines issued from time to time and as such, all these facts clearly proves on record that all the accused, named in the FIRs, had criminal rt conspiracy, but yet trial Court without assigning any cogent and convincing reasons, proceeded to record the findings contrary to the record. He submitted that there is overwhelming evidence suggestive of the fact that accused persons in connivance with Forest and Revenue Officials illicitly felled number of valuable trees from the Government Forest under the garb of private sale.
He submitted that demarcations conducted during investigation clearly show that earlier demarcations on the basis of which, felling orders were issued, were conducted by the unauthorized Revenue Officials, who were hell-bent to give wrongful gain to the forest mafia. Lastly, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that accused persons i.e. contractor and his agents exported excess timber under different export permits and they received payment of excess timber through cheques and drafts, which fact was never explained by the accused persons and hence, impugned judgment of acquittal is bad in the eye of law. He also submitted that learned trial court ignored the documents i.e. counting lists of stumps prepared by Forest and Revenue Officials during the ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 18 course of investigation. He submitted that forged documents alleged to have been prepared by the accused, named in the FIRs, were duly proved by the expert witness, which clearly establishes on record that these documents were .
forged by the accused persons in order to procure false reports from the officials accused for getting undue benefit. He submitted that evidence adduced on record clearly establishes that timber, so exported was not transported through prescribed routes mentioned in export permits and as such, accused otherwise ought to have been held guilty of their having committed offence of punishable under Section 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, but aforesaid aspect was conveniently ignored by learned trial court while ordering acquittal of the accused.
17. rt To the contrary, Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Vivek Sharma and Mr. Ravi Tanta, learned counsel representing the accused, supported the impugned judgments of acquittal. Above named counsel in unison argued that accused persons have not committed any offence qua which they were charged and evidence brought to the fore by the prosecution does not reveal any incriminating substance against them, especially that they had hatched criminal conspiracy in any manner to cause wrongful loss to the state exchequer.
18. Learned counsel for the accused while making this Court peruse statements of PW-2, Mishru Mal, PW-10, Sukh Chain Singh and PW-151, Ratti Ram, vehemently argued that they nowhere supported the case of the prosecution and as such, were rightly not given much weightage by learned trial court while ascertaining the guilt of the accused for their having allegedly committed the offence, as detailed hereinabove.
::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 1919. Mr. Kochhar, learned Senior counsel while making this court peruse provisions contained under Section 120 of the Indian Penal Code, argued that to attract provisions contained under Section 120-B of IPC, prosecution is .
obliged to point out direct or circumstantial evidence to establish that there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence, which is totally lacking in the present case. He submitted that there is no evidence, worth credence, suggestive of the fact that accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy to illicitly fell trees from the government land government forest. He of further submitted that though prosecution attempted to prove involvement of accused Kewal Ram Chauhan, Bhoop Singh and Virender Chauhan in illicit rt felling by examining PW-3, Amar Singh, who stated that the work was being carried out in the name of Mishru Mal and both Kewal Ram Chauhan and his son Virender Chauhan used to visit Shilla Block and the trees were being cut from the private as well as government land, but aforesaid version of PW-3 was further contradicted by DW-6, Liaq Ram, DW-7, Ajay Kumar, DW-12 Bansi Ram and DW-15 Sushil Kumar. He submitted that no false documents ever came to be proved on record to establish that those were got prepared by the accused to have undue benefit and as such, no charge of forging demarcation/marking or launching lists can be said to have been established. He submitted that reports regarding demarcations carried before passing of any orders never came to be brought on record and as such, learned trial court rightly held that charge of forging the demarcation reports as well as marking lists cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny.
20. Mr. Ravi Tanta, learned counsel for the accused while making this court peruse evidence led on record by the prosecution, vehemently argued that ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 20 there was no evidence, worth credence, suggestive of the fact that accused persons illicitly felled/converted and transported the forest produce or illegally extracted the same from Government Forest ,DPF, Shilla and Government land .
in Chak Koti even after 30.11.1982 .i.e. after coming into force of HP Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1982. He submitted that upto 30.11.1982, permit No. 69/1982-83 dated 16.11.1982 Ex. P-85 was issued by DFO C.R. Premi in favour of M/s Mishru Mal i.e. Private Sale Contractor, qua which no illegality has been proved by the prosecution. He submitted that after of 30.11.1982, forest produce, if any, have been found to be exported by M/s Bhoop Singh & Company vide export permit Ext.PW-77/G, but same was not rt proved to be illegal. He submitted that there is no evidence that C.R. Premi (DFO) allowed the sale and purchase of Timber/trees between accused Bhoop Singh son of Dheeraj and approval Mishru Mal after commencement of the HP Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1982. He also submitted that there is no credible evidence that Kewal Ram Chauhan, Virender Singh Chauhan and Bhoop Singh, s/o Jalpu, Bhoop Singh s/o Dheeraj, Gauri Mal and Kedar Singh felled or converted and transported the Forest Produce illegally extracted from Government Forest, DPF, Shilla and Government land and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the court below while acquitting all the accused.
21. Lastly, both Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior counsel and Mr. Ravi Tanta, learned counsel, vehemently argued that demarcations alleged to be wrongly and illegally conducted by the Forest and Revenue Officials before issuing felling orders were never brought on record and as such, no evidence, worth credence, ever came to be placed on record suggestive of the fact that ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 21 accused, named in the FIRs, with a view to cause loss to the public exchequer wrongly got the land of the private owners demarcated and in place thereof, felled the trees from the Government land, which was adjoining to the land of .
the private Zamindars. They submitted that demarcation carried out was not according to the established procedure and until and unless, earlier demarcations were proved or shown illegal, subsequent demarcations, if any, conducted by prosecution was rightly not taken into consideration by the learned trial court.
of
22. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned judgments of rt acquittal passed by learned trial court, this Court is not persuaded to agree with the contention raised by learned Additional Advocate General that court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, as a result thereof, finding to the contrary to the record and to the detriment to the prosecution have come to the fore, rather this Court finds that learned trial court below has meticulously considered entire evidence, be it ocular or documentary, led on record by the prosecution. Evidence, if read in its entirety, certainly compels this court to agree with the contentions raised on behalf of the accused that prosecution has not been able to prove that accused hatched criminal conspiracy and in furtherance of the same, fabricated and forged the documents to cause huge loss to public exchequer and undue gain to themselves.
23. Though, prosecution with the aid and assistance of three approvers, namely PW-2 Mishru mal, PW-151 Ratti Ram and PW-10, Sukh Chain Singh attempted to prove that accused, named in the FIRs, hatched criminal ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 22 conspiracy to illicitly fell trees on the government/forest land, but two of the approvers PW-2, Mishru mal and Ratti Ram (PW-151) nowhere supported the case of the prosecution, whereas PW-10, Sukh Chain Singh though supported .
the case of the prosecution, but was contradicted by the statements of other witnesses, namely PW-28, Amar Singh, who produced tour diaries of Sukh Chain Singh, showing that on the relevant date and time, he had not visited the area, where the felling was being done. PW-38, Panu Ram (Felling Contractor), PW-112, Gopi Chand i.e. Munshi of Mishru Mal, DW-22, B.D.Sharma, proved of the revocation of suspension and benefits after he toed to the lines of the IO to become approver.
24. rt In nutshell, case of the prosecution is that after registration of FIRs, as detailed hereinabove, demarcation of the area was got conducted through Chandermani and Vishnu Dutt in the years 1983, 1984 and 1985, respectively and it was found that trees were marked and felled from the Government land and the Zamindars, who alleged to have sold the trees were neither the signatory/ author of the documents annexed in the private sale cases and their signatures were forged by Bhup Singh S/o Jalpu, Bhup Singh, s/o Dhirju, Gauri mal, to achieve the goal of illicit felling from the Government land. Further case of the prosecution is that scants were exported to Yamuna Nagar to M/s Payare Lal Joginder Pal and the checking of their record revealed that total number of 26028 scants were received by the Firm from May, 1982 to January, 1983, which included the timber of the case in question.
25. Entire case of the prosecution rests upon the following set of witnesses:
1. Zamindars/owners of private land alleged to have sold the trees.
2. The demarcating officers.
3. Officials who dealt the cases in the office of DFO Chopal.::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 23
4. Officials who supplied documents to investigating agency.
5. Approvers.
6. Munshis and Contractors of Mishru Mal Approver.
7. Officials who took specimen signature and handwriting and the examiner of question documents.
8. Officers who accorded prosecution sanction.
.
9. Timber Merchants and commission agents.
10. Bank Officers.
11. Misc. witnesses alleged to have seen the felling of the trees and connected with the case.
26. Followings are the persons, who are the Zamindars/owners of private land alleged to have sold the trees:-
of
1. PW-154, Dasia
2. PW-127, Dasia
3. PW-128 Purnu
27. rt Three demarcations were conducted during the investigation i.e. 1983, 1984 and 1985. Demarcation of 1983 was conducted by PW-42, Chandermani, PW-122 Bhagwan Singh Patwari, PW-5 Ganesh, Patwari, PW-109 Mangat Ram, Deputy Ranger Enforcement and PW-162, P.P. Sethi Inspector.
Demarcation of 1984 was conducted by PW-42, Chander Mani, PW-122, Bhagwan Sing, Patwari, PW-5, Ganesh, Patwari, PW-109, Mangat Ram, Deputy Ranger Enforcement and PW-171, Inspector Yakub Khan and demarcation of 1985 was conducted by PW-42, Chander Mani, PW-122, Bhagwan Singh, Patwari, PW-5, Ganesh Patwari, PW-109, Mangat Ram, Deputy Ranger Enforcement, PW-108, Liaq Ram, Range Officer and PW-160 Sant Ram, B.O.
28. Witnesses namely, Roop Singh (Kanungo) and Vijay Kumar( Inspector), who remained associated with the demarcation in the year, 1983 and two ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 24 officials, namely Munnu Ram (Kanungo) and Parma Nandi (Patwari), who remained associated with the demarcation of 1985, were given up.
29. As per demarcation reports, Ex.PW42/117, Ex.PW42/118 and .
Ex.PW42/171 carried out in the year, 1983, 1984 and 1985, no tree was found marked and felled in private land and stamps numbering 114 were found on the Government land. Details of demarcation dates and reports and the FIRs, in which they are relied upon, are given hereinbelow:
Sr. Name of Chak Demarcation Ext. FIR No.
No. date
of
1. Shilla 5.7.1984 PW42/118 21/83, 22/83,
23/83, 24/83 &
26/83, 27/83
2. Tiprog 8.7.1984 PW42/119 21/83, 23/83
3.
4.
Koti
Koti
rt 25.6.1984
8.7.1984
PW42/120 27/83, 29/83
PW42/121 24/83,23/83
5. Navi 3.7.1984 PW42/127 22/83
6. Dharbar 6.7.1984 PW42/133 25/83
7. Mundli 4.7.1987 PW42/141 30/83
30. As per prosecution, in the first demarcation conducted in the year 1983, only the private lands were demarcated vide Ex.PW42/117 and no Government land was demarcated. During 1984, demarcations of both private and government lands were conducted, but however land owners were not associated and as per case of the prosecution, 114 stumps were found to have been cut from the Government land and in the demarcation conducted in the year, 1985, only 89 were found to have been cut from the government land.
Since prosecution failed to reconcile the aforesaid ambiguity qua number of trees found in the demarcations of 1984 and 1985, demarcation reports placed on record, as detailed hereinabove, were not found to be genuine by the ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 25 learned trial court. Moreover, perusal of demarcation reports as well as version of officials witnesses clearly reveals that demarcation was not conducted by following due procedure. Demarcating Officer at no point of time prepared .
"Naksha Tafawfat" (memo of variation) to ascertain which of the demarcation was correct. Most importantly, no order of superior authority in terms of provisions contained under Section 107 of the Land Records Manual was ever taken and interestingly, no notice was given to accused, especially accused C.R. Premi, Varinder Chauhan and Kewal Ram Chauhan, who allegedly of hatched criminal conspiracy. On the top of everything, demarcations placed on record reveal that same was conducted on account of boundary dispute i.e. rt determination of boundaries between various Khasra numbers of private land and adjoining government land, if it is so, the whole forest land was to be demarcated and not part of the forest land.
31. Though, prosecution relied upon all the demarcations, but relying upon the demarcation conducted in the year, 1983, prosecution witnesses clearly admitted that three pucca points were not properly established and boundary pillars established by Forest Department at the spot were not considered and taken into consideration. PW-160, Sant Ram, who prepared the stump counting list alongwith PW-108, Laiq Ram admitted that only those stumps were counted, which were forwarded by the I.O. and there was no distinguishing mark on those stumps. PW-109, Mangat Ram admitted that no marks were seen on the stumps, which were counted in the year, 1985. He further admitted that in the year 1983-84, no such marks were on those stumps and feigned ignorance, who embossed those marks. Statements having been made by PW-
139, Varinder Singh Negi, PW-85, Kundan Singh Negi, PW-83 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 26 V.K. Jain and PW-84, Nain Singh, all officials, who dealt the cases of Office of DFO, Chopal clearly reveal that accused CR Premi followed the due procedure and never overlooked the procedure or connived with any of the accused .
persons.
32. Though, PW-2, Mishru Mal, PW-151, Ratti Ram and PW-10, Sukh Chain turned approvers, but PW-2 Mishru Mal and PW151, Ratti Ram, nowhere supported the case of the prosecution. Though, PW-10, Sukh Chain Singh attempted to support the case of prosecution, but his statement was rightly of ignored on account of his version being contrary to the version of other prosecution witnesses PW-20, Amar Singh ,PW-38 Panu Ram, PW-112 Gopi rt Chand, PW-22 B.D. Sharma.PW-112, Gopi Chand and PW-151, Ratti Ram were the Munshi and contractor of Mishru Mal , PW-166, Joginder Pal and PW-
168, Narinder Pal timber merchants and commission agent, to whom allegedly timber was sold also not supported the case of the prosecution. Though PW-3, Amar Singh supported the case by stating that Kewal Ram Chauhan and Varinder Chauhan were supervising the work of felling from the Government land and accused C.R .Premi was partner, but such statement of him was contradicted by DW-6, Laiq Ram, DW-5, Parma Nand, DW-7 Ajay, DW-122, Bansi Ram, DW-15 Sushil Kumar and DW-14, Ramesh Chand.
33. Most importantly, statement made by PW-42, Chandermani, who carried out demarcation in the years, 1983, 1984 and 1985 and proved on record the reports of demarcation Ext. PW42/117, Ext.PW127 and Ext.PW42/143, clearly reveals that at the time of conducting demarcation, instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner were neither followed nor the evidence of these witnesses could prove on record that 37 trees were felled from the Government ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 27 land. Version put forth by PW-108, Laiq Ram, Range Officer, PW-109, Mangat Ram, Deputy Ranger, PW-160, Sant Ram B.O., and Throach. PW-122, Bhagwan Singh Patwari, PW-5, Ganesh and Investigating Officer PW-162, P.P. .
Sethi rightly came to be ignored by learned Trial Court because they also failed to establish on record that demarcation in the year 1983,1984 and 1985 Ext.PW40/117 Ext.PW127 and Ext.PW42/143 were conducted strictly in terms of instructions issued by Financial Commissioner and due opportunity of presence and being heard was ever afforded to the affected parties. Otherwise of also, version put forth by aforesaid witnesses was contradicted by DW-18, Mohi Ram, Record Kanungo and DW-19, Amar Singh, who proved that there were rt other lots of Forest Corporation working in Shilla Block. Version put forth by DW-28, Amar Singh, who claimed to have seen the illicit felling being done under the supervision of Kewal Ram Chauhan and Varinder Chauhan, was rightly not taken into consideration by learned trial Court on account of cogent and convincing evidence adduced on record on behalf of accused in the shape of DW-6 Laiq Ram, DW-5 Parma Nand, DW-7 Ajay, DW-12,Bansi Ram, DW-15 Sushil Kumar and DW-14, Ramesh Chand, Police Station East Shimla.
34. Most importantly, PW-2, Mishru Mal, who turned approver nowhere supported the case of the prosecution and admitted himself to be actual beneficiary and explained the circumstances how he was forced to make statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C and as such, his version was rightly not taken into consideration. Similarly, version put forth by PW-10, Sukh Chain Singh, approver was not corroborated by any witness, rather he was contradicted by his own statement and by the statement of other witness namely, DW-2, Amar Singh, who while producing the tour diaries of Sukh Chain Singh, proved on ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 28 record that on the relevant date and time, he had not visited the said forest where private sale was in progress. Another approver PW-151, Ratti Ram, who allegedly used to supervise felling and conversion also not supported the case .
of prosecution. PW-152, Hari Ram, PW-32 Pannu Ram, PW-39,Keshu Ram PW-40, Sukh Ram and PW-117, Jhina Singh also not supported the case of the prosecution, rather they all contradicted the statement given by approver namely, PW-151, Ratti Ram.
35. As per demarcation report Ext.PW42/117 carried out in the year 1983, of only 11 trees were found in Khasra Nos. 588 and 595, Ext. PW42/133 in the year, 1984 demarcation conducted by Chandermani (PW-42) reveals that only rt 17 marked stumps were found in private land and 795 trees were found in Government land, whereas as per prosecution, accused alleged to have felled 236 from the Government land and 11 from private land. As per demarcation report Ex. PW 42/150 conducted by Chandermani in the year, 1985 the stump counting list, 257 stumps were found from the government land and 11 from private land. Since all the demarcation reports, as detailed hereinabove, do not reconcile, especially with regard to number of trees allegedly felled from the Government land as well as stumps present thereon those were rightly not taken into consideration by the Court below.
36. Otherwise also, demarcation reports relied heavily by prosecution could not have been taken into consideration for the reason that in first demarcation conducted in the year, 1983 only the private lands were demarcated vide Ext.PW-42/117 and no government land was demarcated. As per case of prosecution, 18 trees were found to have been cut from the private land. During 1984, demarcation both private and Government lands were conducted, but at ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 29 that time land owners were not associated and 17 trees were found to have been cut from the Government land, whereas in demarcation in the year, 1985 only 89 trees were found to have been cut from the government land.
.
37. Precisely, prosecution attempted to prove the cases, as detailed hereinabove, that the accused by hatching criminal conspiracy cut number of trees from the Government land and on papers such trees were shown to have been cut from the private land, but such allegations never came to be proved in accordance with law. By placing on record demarcation reports, prosecution of attempted to prove that 712 trees were found to have been cut from the Government land, whereas the total number mentioned in the stump counting rt list comes out of 725. There is no explanation qua variation of 13 stumps.
Further scrutiny of stump counting list Ext. PW42/140 reveals that only 79 stumps were counted in government land bearing Khasra Nos. 181, 182/1, 167, 164, 191/1, 380/3, 120, 1/4 and in khasra No. 1/2, the stumps counted in above said Khasra numbers are 149. Against 149 stumps mentioned in the demarcation report dated 08.07.1984 and 05.07.1984 in respect of FIR No. 29/83 in the stump counting list Ext.PW42/140 as many as 79 stumps were found on the Government land, meaning thereby, there is a variation of 70 stumps for which there is no explanation put forth by the prosecution.
38. Similarly, demarcation in the year, 1985 was given by two different Naib Tehsildars i.e. PW-42 Chandermani (Naib Tehsildar) in case FIR Nos. 22/83 25/83, 26/83, 27/83 and 30/83 and PW-167 and Vishnu Dutt (Naib Tehsildar) in case FIR No. 21/83, 23/83, 24/83 and 29/83. As per prosecution, members of the party headed by PW-42, Chandermani were PW-161, Kulwant Singh, PW-
160 Sant Ram and PW-109, Mangat Ram and the members of party headed by ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 30 Sh. Vishnu Dutt were PW-5, Ganesh Chand Patwari and PW-108, Liaq Ram(RO), PW-121, Parmanand Patwari, PW-122, Bhagwan Dass, Patwari, PW-160, Sant Ram Deputy Ranger, PW-109 Mangat Ram, Deputy Ranger and .
PW-172 Shakti Chand, Inspector. If the statements made by aforesaid witnesses are perused, they have not been able to explain variation found during the demarcation allegedly conducted in the year 1984 and 1985 when the Government land was allegedly demarcated. Interestingly, none of the accused was called during the demarcation and no reasons ever came to be of put forth by the prosecution for not summoning them while conducting the alleged demarcation. If the statements of officials, who remained associated in rt the demarcation are read in conjunction, it clearly emerges that neither demarcations were conducted as per the guidelines issued by the Financial Commissioner, which find mention in HP High Court Rules and Orders and Section of 107 of HP Land Manual Act nor private parties, who had allegedly sold trees to accused Kewal Ram Sharma, who allegedly connived with Kewal Ram Chauhan and Varinder Chauhan, were ever associated. All the witnesses contradicted each other on material particular like how demarcation was conducted, who counted the stumps, who deciphered the stumps, hammer mark on the stumps and other proceedings allegedly conducted on the spot.
Demarcating Officer failed to assign reason that why he failed to prepare "Naksha Tafawfat" which was necessary in cases of boundary disputes and not taking into consideration the boundary pillars affixed by the Forest Department during settlement. Demarcating Officer categorically admitted that he did not deem it necessary to locate pucca points in the demarcation, which itself suggests that demarcations were not conducted following due procedure of law.
::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 31As per own statement of Demarcating officer, entire forest land was not demarcated, rather only portion of Khasra number was demarcated and no perpendiculars were drawn and marked with pencil and musabi. Leaving .
everything aside, earlier demarcation report on the basis of which undue benefit was drawn by the accused was never set aside being quasi judicial proceedings.
39. There is no evidence of stump having found hammer mark No.112 and no reason has been assigned by the Investigating Agency for not taking into of consideration the trees, which were sanctioned in the said forest to the inhabitants by virtue of their rights laid down in "Waizib-ul-Urj" Ext. PW-18/A to rt 18/F and the TD sanctioned and during the relevant year the record of which has been proved on record vide Ext. PW28/A & 28/B showing number of trees sanctioned to be 121 and 165, respectively. Apart from this, the record of the trees, which were sanctioned by the Department for its own use was not considered without any explanation and also no explanation has been placed on record that why the record of Govt. lots No. 71/82-83 and 69/82-83 allotted to Forest Corporation, where 3300 trees were marked as stated by DW-19, Amar Singh, was not considered. In the absence of a clear hammer mark, no stump of the tree could have been attributed to any of the accused by proclaiming that it was the illicit felling done in the present cases. Similarly, the trees which were felled illicitly, for which damage reports were issued, were not taken into consideration without assigning any reasons.
40. After having considered and evaluated the statements made by the material prosecution witnesses, as taken note hereinabove, we need to ascertain whether evidence adduced on record by the prosecution is sufficient ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 32 to constitute offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC or not?. Before undertaking aforesaid exercise, it would be apt to take note of provisions contained under Section 120-A IPC, which defines the criminal conspiracy:-
.
"120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.- When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done
1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in of pursuance thereof.
Explanation:-It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.
41. Careful perusal of aforesaid provision of law clearly reveals that essential rt ingredient of the offence of "criminal conspiracy" is the agreement to commit an offence. The essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal and such agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both. Direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available and, therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. Section 120-B of IPC, provides for punishment of criminal conspiracy.
The ingredients to constitute a criminal conspiracy were summarized by Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment passed in State through Superintendent of Police vs. Nalini & others (1999) 5 SCC 253, which reads as under:-
i. Conspiracy is when two or more persons agree to delinquent officer or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. ii. The offence of criminal conspiracy is an exception to the general law, where intent alone does not constitute crime. It is the intention to commit a crime and join hands with persons having the same intention. iii. Conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct evidence. Usually, the existence of the ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 33 conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused.
iv. Where in pursuance of the agreement, the conspirators commit offenses individually or adopt illegal means to delinquent officer a legal act that has a nexus to the object of the conspiracy, all of them will be liable for .
such offences even if some of them have not already actively participated in the commission of those offences.
42. Aforesaid principles were again reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013)13 SCC 1, of wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that to establish conspiracy, it is necessary to establish an agreement between the parties. Hon'ble Apex Court further held that the offence of criminal conspiracy is of joint responsibility, all conspirators rt are liable for the acts of each of the crimes, which have been committed as a result of the conspiracy.
43. Mere proof of such an agreement is sufficient to establish criminal conspiracy, reference in this regard is made to judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sushil Suri vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2011SC 1713:(2011)5 SCC 708.
44. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Arvind Singh vs. State of Maharashtra, (2021)11 SCC 1. Hon'ble Apex Court in Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 2 ALT( Crl)(SC) 139, has held as under:
"31. For the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, to be established, an agreement between the parties to do an unlawful act must exist. In some cases, direct evidence to establish conspiracy may be absent, but when the lack of evidence is apparent, it is not safe to hold a person guilty under this section. To prove the offence of criminal conspiracy, it is imperative to show a meeting of the minds between the ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 34 conspirators for the intended common object. It was observed by a twojudge bench of this Court in Parveen v. State of Haryana, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1184, that "A few bits here and a few bits there on which prosecution relies, cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of crime of criminal conspiracy."
.
32. Keeping this abovesaid principle in view, we believe that the present appellant cannot be convicted of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860, solely for having concealed the location of the incriminating materials/ articles and, in the absence of any evidence establishing meeting of the minds. Given that all the other coaccused have been acquitted by the courts below, meaning they were innocent of the crime, of the fundamental requirement of a criminal conspiracy is not met.
33. Needless to say, the charge of criminal conspiracy also fails on the ground that a single person cannot hatch a conspiracy."
rt
45. In Pushpendra Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 0 AIR (SC) 3983, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"15. On a perusal of the FIR, we find that it is alleged against Umesh Kumar, Financial Controller - III and the present Appellant, CE (APDRP), that they made payment of Rs.4,89,24,788/ against the gross value of Rs. 7,89,84,826/, as per the arbitral award without approval of the competent authority. Mr. Umesh Kumar had filed quashment petition being 'Cr. M.P. No. 2136/2015' before the High Court wherein the Court on the allegation of payment without approval of the competent authority (as alleged against Appellant also) has observed as under:
"1. ...
2. ...
3. Further, it be stated that the ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing of an illegal act or for doing, by illegal means, an act which by itself may not be illegal. In other words, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both and it is a matter of common experience that ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 35 direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Accordingly, the circumstances proved before and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. Even, if some acts are proved to have been committed, it must be clear that they were so committed in pursuance of an agreement made between the accused persons who were .
parties to the alleged conspiracy. Inferences from such proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn only when such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable explanation. In other words, an offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inference which are not supported by cogent and acceptable evidence. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao {(2012) 9 SCC 512}. Here in the instant case, nothing appears to be there for showing connivance or conspiracy except aforesaid two facts which have been dealt with hereinabove regarding payment of the amount to the contractor."
rt
46. Similarly, this Court in State of H.P. v. Laxmi Nand and others, 1992 (2) Sim. L.C. 307, has held as under:
"13. The demarcation was given by accused-respondent No. 1 on April 24, 1976, at the time when marking lists Ex. PCX/1 to Ex.PCX/22, were prepared by accused-respondents 2 to 4 on the strength of the permission Ex.PCL/6 accorded on February 15, 1975 by P.W. 48. Such report of demarcation has not been produced on record and there is no presumption in law that respondent No. 1 failed to discharge his statutory duty while carrying out the demarcation. In the absence of the report, it has to be presumed that respondent No. 1 did carry out the task of demarcating those parcels of land) out of which marking permission was sought by the land-owners to mark the trees which they had agreed to sell in favour of accused-respondents Nos. 7 and 8. The prosecution relied heavily upon the demarcation reports of Kewal Ram, Sadar Kanungo, Exs.PO/1 and PO/2 and Exs.PBH and PBH/1 given to I Ganesh Ram P.W. 25, on the strength of which lists of stumps Exs.PH, PK and PL and Ex.PD, Ex.PH were prepared by Magni Ram I P.W. 3, which form the basis for the prosecution in assuming that trees had been felled from the Government land. The question which requires determination is whether any reliance can be placed upon such reports of demarcation. The learned Special Judge has discarded these reports ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 36 of demarcation on various grounds and concluded that since it is not shown that demarcation was carried out in accordance with the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner, which have been incorporated in Chapter 1-M, Volume I of High Court Rules and Orders, pertaining to Hadd Shikni cases, the same cannot form the basis for holding that trees from Government land were .
felled.
14. ..
15. ...
I. ..
II. In the report to be submitted by him, the Kanungo must explain in detail how he made his measurement. He should submit a copy of the of relevant portion of the current settlement field map of the village showing the fields if any with their dimensions (Karu kan) of which he took measurement situated between the points mentioned in Instruction I above and the boundary in dispute. This is necessary to enable the rt Court to follow the method adopted and to check the Field Kanungo's proceedings."
47. Applying the principles as culled out in the aforesaid judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, we find it difficult to agree with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Additional Advocate General that prosecution on the basis of evidence, as discussed in detail hereinabove, was able to prove criminal conspiracy, if any, hatched by the accused, named in the FIRs, as defined under Section 120-A punishable under Section 120-B of IPC. It has been repeatedly held that to substantiate the charge under Section 120-B of IPC, prosecution is under obligation to prove conspiracy at least between two or more persons. Since it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence to prove criminal conspiracy, prosecution can rely upon circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence must be of such a nature that all circumstances, if proved beyond reasonable doubt should lead to sole inference that offence was committed by the accused persons and none else. Needless to say, criminal ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 37 law presumes every accused to be an innocent in a case till the time otherwise is proved and established, this presumption of Innocence in favour of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution. Every doubt appearing in .
prosecution case is to be legally availed of in favour of the accused. Onus to prove the guilt by the prosecution can be successfully discharged through legally competent evidence, which should be independent, reliable and unimpeachable.
48. In the case at hand, prosecution with a view to prove charge of criminal of conspiracy heavily relied upon the statements of three approvers namely, Mishru Mal (PW-2), Ratti Ram (PW-151) and Sukh Chain Singh (PW-10). As rt has been taken note hereinabove, Mishru Mal (PW-2) and Ratti Ram (PW-151) nowhere supported the case of the prosecution, rather they turned hostile. It is settled law that testimony of a hostile witness can be accepted to the extent the version is found to be dependable on careful scrutiny thereof. Testimony of such a witness can be relied upon and cannot be treated as being washed off the record as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Naushad vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 SCC online SC 784, Hari and another vs. State of U.P., 2021 SCC Online SC 1131 and Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai Vs. State of Gujarat (1999) 8 SCC 624.
49. Since approver Mishru Mal (PW-2) in his deposition deposed that he himself is the actual beneficiary of the transaction of private sale of the trees and co-accused Kewal Ram Chauhan and his son Virender Singh accused have nothing to do with the private sale business, no benefit otherwise could have been availed off by the prosecution of the statement, if any, made in favour of the prosecution by the aforesaid approver. This witness categorically ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 38 stated that he was pressurized by the investigating agency to make the statement implicating the accused Kewal Ram Chauhan and Virender Singh Chauhan as beneficiary of business. This witness also deposed that he could .
not withstand the police pressure as he was named as accused in various similar cases, which were either pending in the court or under investigation.
50. Similarly, PW-10, Sukh Chain Singh, who was granted pardon and has become approver, though supported the prosecution version regarding criminal conspiracy, but since his version was not corroborated by any Independent of witness, rather contradicted in material particulars by his own narration made by him before being examined in the court as PW-10, learned Court rightly not rt placed much reliance upon the same while ascertaining the guilt of the accused, named in the FIRs.
51. Leaving everything aside, aforesaid Sukh Chain Singh (PW-10) though deposed that once or twice he visited the spot and trees standing on the Govt.
land adjacent to the boundary of the private land were being felled by the labourers engaged by Kewal Ram Chauhan and his son, but aforesaid version of him came to be contradicted with the statement of PW-10. According to PW-
10, Sukh Chain Singh visited Shila Block once or twice and he also admitted that he has submitted only tour diary to the Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal every month. Ext.P-10 is the tour diary, wherein he had shown the visit to Shila forest on 25.11.1982 and Ext.P-11 is the entry in the tour diary. Perusal of entry would go to show that on 25.11.1962 Sukh Chain went from Tharoch to Ohli covering a distance of about 12 kilometers and he further admitted that against this entry, he has mentioned that he has inspected forest areas, where labourers were working, which version of him contradicts the deposition of Sukh ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 39 Chain Singh that he inspected the Shila forest and observed felling and conversion of the trees being done in govt. land.
52. PW-151, Ratti Ram, nowhere supported the case of the prosecution, but .
contradicted the deposition of approver Sukh Chain Singh. Approver Sukh Chain Singh (PW-10) deposed that Ratti Ram used to supervise felling operation of the trees and their conversion on behalf of Kewal Ram Chauhan and Mishru Mal. He stated that he was taken to Shilla forest by Misru Mal. He further deposed that he does not know what were the rights and liabilities of of Kewal Ram Chauhan and Virender Singh in the firm of Misru Mal. The approver stated that a private sale work was of Kewal Ram Chauhan and Virender Singh rt Chauhan and sometimes Mishru Mal and Virender Singh Chauhan used to visit those places where felling work was going on and Kewal Ram Chauhan had also visited such places of and on. He further deposed that labour of Punu Tekhedar was engaged for cutting and felling and Kashmiri labourers were used for sawing the timber and Gorkhas were engaged for carrying the timber. Shri Keshu Ram has been examined by the prosecution as PW-39, wherein he stated that Punu Ram had been doing the work of felling of the trees as contractor and he also worked as labourer for two days with him. He deposed that he did not know that he was a forest contractor for whom trees were felled and thus he has not supported the version of the prosecution and corroborated the statement of approver Sukh Chain Singh that they were engaged for felling by Kewal Ram Chauhan and Virender Singh. Most importantly, this witness categorically deposed that the trees, which were felled by them were within the lands owned by Zamindars, whereas Punu Ram while examined as PW-38 contradicted approver Sukh Chain Singh by saying that he was never given ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 40 contract for felling of trees by accused Kewal Ram Chauhan and Virender Singh. As per story of the prosecution, Sukh Ram (PW-40) saw accused Kewal Ram Chauhan and Virender Singh illicitly felling trees from Govt. forest, but if .
the statement of aforesaid witness is perused, he categorically denied having seen Virender Singh and Kewal Ram Chauhan on the site of the work. Similarly Jina Singh (PM-117) denied that the wages of the Chirani and Dhulani were paid by accused Kewal Ram at his godown.
53. Prosecution also examined Chander Man i(PW-42) and Vishnu Dutt of (PW-167) to prove that accused felled trees from the government land. As per prosecution, aforesaid persons conducted demarcations in the years 1983, rt 1984 and 1985 with the aid and assistance of Revenue and Forest Officials namely, Laiq Ram, Sant Ram and Mangat Ram, who prepared the stumps counting lists. As per prosecution, services of Chander Mani (PW-42) were utilized for demarcating the land and the first demarcation was conducted in the year, 1983 by Shri Chander Mani w.e.f. 23.8.1983 has to 29.8.1983 Ext.PW42/117. Aforesaid report was signed by PW-122, PW-5, PW-109 PW-
162, who were present there and Second demarcation was given by him in the year, 1984 i.e. Ext.PW42/118 to Ext.PW42/121 alongwith stumps counting lists Ext.PW42/122 and Ext.PW42/123 and third demarcation was given by Shri Vishnu Dutt (PW-167) in the year, 1985 i.e. Ext.PW167/M and the stumps counting list are Ext.PM38/X/D/A and Ext, P160/B to PW160/H. The allegations of the prosecution against the official accused was that they in connivance with the non-official accused intentionally conducted the demarcation contrary to the rules with mala-fide intention and pursuant to this conspiracy, wrong demarcation was given and the trees were marked in the Govt. forest instead of ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 41 private land under the garb of private sale and official accused allowed illicit felling of the trees from the Govt. forest.
54. As has been discussed hereinabove in detail that demarcations .
conducted in the years 1983,1984 and 1985 by persons namely, Chander Mani and Vishnu Dutt were not in accordance with the procedure, rules and instructions issued from time to time and as such, same were rightly ignored by learned trial court. Otherwise also, if statements made by aforesaid prosecution witnesses are read juxtaposing demarcation reports as well as stump counting of list, there are material contradictions/variations with regard to number of trees allegedly felled from government land as well as stumps found thereafter. If the rt statements made by aforesaid witnesses, which otherwise has been taken note in earlier part of the judgment, are read in conjunction, it clearly reveals that they did not deem necessary to locate the tri-section in the demarcations conducted by them in the years, 1983,1984 and 1985. They also admitted that total areas of the concerned Khasra numbers were not demarcated. Most importantly, these witnesses admitted that Enforcement Officials had asked for demarcation of only portion of Khasra numbers and even otherwise it was not possible to demarcate the entire Khasra numbers of the forest. It has come in the statements of these material prosecution witnesses that some of the stumps were marked and some of the stumps did not bear any mark. Interestingly and importantly, these witnesses admitted that they did not see the earlier demarcation file which was conducted by Kanungo Parma Nand. It is admitted case of the prosecution that before registration of case, applications of private sale were submitted by the landlord for demarcation, marking and felling of the trees. Applications were marked to Chattar Singh (now deceased) for ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 42 demarcation and marking and the demarcation was given by Parma Nand (now deceased). It is not in dispute that demarcation given by Parma Nand was never produced on record. Since demarcation report given by Parma Nand on .
the basis of which allegedly accused felled the trees from the government land was not produced, learned trial Court rightly concluded that there is no presumption under the law that accused Parma Nand has failed to discharge his statutory duties while carrying out the demarcation. In the absence of the report of Parma Nand, it is to be presumed that he conducted demarcation of of those parcels of land out of which marking permission was sought by the land owners to mark the trees, which they agreed to sell in favour of accused Kewal rt Ram Sharma. Admittedly, in the present case first demarcation carried out by Parma Nand was never set-aside by superior Revenue Officer, therefore, same attained finality. Subsequent demarcations Ext.PW42/117, Ext.PW42/118 to Ext.PW42/121 and Ext.PW167/M conducted by Chander Mani (PW-42) and Vishnu Dutt (PW-167) rightly were not accepted to be correct by the court for proving the illicit felling of the trees from the Govt. land by the accused.
Needless to say, demarcation is a quasi-judicial proceedings. Demarcation given in accordance with rules and instructions issued by the government from time to time cannot be ignored or brushed aside till the time, same is not set aside by the competent authority. Parties likely to be affected by the result of quasi-judicial proceedings are required to be afforded an opportunity to make their stand clear. However, in the instant case neither parties were heard nor given an opportunity to satisfy themselves as to the correctness of the demarcation of the disputed land.
::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 4355. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1985, titled State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Laxmi Nand and others, decided on 9.01.1992, wherein it has been held .
as under:-
"16. Demarcation of boundaries of any holding, field or any portion of any other estate under Section 107 of the Act is otherwise a statutory funcion of quasi-judicial nature of the Revenue Officer, as held in Radha Soami Satsang Beas through Shri Madan Gopal Singh v. State of H.P., ILR 1984 HP 317 : (AIR 1989 HP 15). Since the function to demarcate the limits of any holding or field is a statutory function of a quasi-judicial nature, it is, therefore, absolutely necessary for the Revenue Officer, of while carrying out demarcation, to perform the function in accordance with the instructions and guidelines, which have been issued by the Financial Commissioner under the powers contained in Section 106 of the Act meticulously without any deviation therefrom, since it also affects valuable rights of the estate right holders. The report of demarcation on rt the face of it must show that all precautions which are required to be taken as per the instructions were taken, so as to enable the Court, when the report comes before it to follow the method adopted by the Revenue Officer while carrying out demarcation and to find out that no mistake has been committed in doing so, so as to avoid the possibility of any error having crept in.
17. It is the admitted case of the parties that in so far as the three revenue estates are concerned, the maps prepared during the last settlement were not on square system, Accordingly, the determining officer was required to relay the boundaries of the fields sought to be demarcated from the Shajra (village map), prepared at the last settlement. He was required to locate three permanent points on three different sides of the area sought to be demarcated. The three points so selected and to be taken as basis must be those, which are admitted to have remained undisputed from the last settlement. The officer is thereafter required to chain these three points on the spot and then compare the result with the distance given as per scale on the Shajra. It is only when distance, so compared, agree that the Revenue Officer can proceed with the further work of measurement. A pencil line is supposed to be drawn joining these three permanent points and thereafter perpendiculars are supposed to be drawn from these lines to each of the point, which are required to be located on the spot, in order to enable him to find out the exact distance from these points to the point sought to be demarcated, and then tally the result with the help of the scale on the Sharja, which can be drawn only with the help of the scale on the Shajra, which can be drawn only with the help of a crossed staff. The result to be finally checked by measuring on the help of scale on the Sharja. Since this report of demarcation is liable to scrutiny, by way of evidence, it is required that the report of the concerned officer on the face of it must explain the details and the manner as to how he made his measurements, which report must accompany a copy of the relevant ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 44 portion of the Field Book of current settlement of the village showing Karu kans (dimensions) of the fields of which he took measurements as also a map showing therein the three permanent points, the fields measured and the boundary in dispute. As per the instructions, this is one of the necessary requirements to enable the Court to follow the method adopted and also in order to find out the veracity of the proceedings. The other requirement, while submitting the report is to .
record the statements of interested parties before taking the three permanent points to the effect that all of them agreed and accepted the three points as permanent points on three different sides of the property. In case any objection is raised as to the manner in carrying out the demarcation, the said objection is required to be reduced into writing, so as to avoid the possibility of raising any question specifically and also to enable the Court to decide such objections. In case, objection is raised on the spot, the demarcating officer is also required to submit his opinion on such objections. In case, while carrying out the demarcation, any dicrepancy is noticed in the area of the fields abutting on the of boundary in dispute as recorded in the last settlement and the one arrived at as a result of the actual measurement on the spot, the report is required to incorporate the same with explanation as to the cause of increase or decrease, if any, discovered on the spot. All these requirements, in our opinion, have been incorporated in the instructions rt with the ultimate object of ascertaining that while carrying out the demarcation correct method was adopted and no mistake committed.
56. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.206 of 2000, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Garib Dass and others, decided on 2.07.2007, wherein it has been held as under:-
"11. In fact, Section 106 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act empowers the Financial Commissioner to make rules for demarcation of boundaries and erection of powers of the revenue officer to define boundaries of field or any portion of any other estate under Section 107 of the Act which otherwise is statutory function of a quasi-judicial nature of the Revenue Officer as held in Radha Soami Satsang Beas through Shri Madan Gopal v. State of H.P. . Since the function to demarcate the limits of any holding or field is a statutory function of a quasi-judicial nature, it is therefore, absolutely necessary for the Revenue Officer, while carrying out demarcation, to perform the function in accordance with the instructions and the guidelines which have been issued by the Financial Commissioner under the powers contained in Section 106 of the Act meticulously without any deviation there from, since it also affects valuable rights of the estate right holders. The report of demarcation on the face of it must show that all precautions which are required to be taken as per the instructions, aforesaid, were taken so as to enable the Court, when the report comes before it to follow the method adopted by the Revenue Officer while carrying out the demarcation and to find out that no mistake has been committed in ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 45 doing so, so as to avoid the possibility of any error. Accordingly, the demarcating officer was required to relay the boundaries of the fields sought to be demarcated from the Shajra (village map) prepared during the last settlement. He is required to locate three permanent points on three different sides of the area sought to be demarcated.
In the instant case, the report aforesaid is absolutely contrary to the .
guidelines/ instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner under Section 106 of the Act. Faced with this similar situation, the Divisional Bench of this Court in State v. Mangat Ram Criminal Appeal No. 125 and 126 of 1985 decided on 4-4-1997, 1999 (2) CLR 129, also did not agree with the demarcation conducted by the Revenue Officer as it was contrary to the instructions aforesaid | acquitted the respondents."
57. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment passed by this Court of in case titled Radha Soami Satsang Beas through Shri Madan Gopal Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, ILR 1984 HP 317, wherein it has been held that resorting to repeated demarcation, one after the other, without rt earlier having been set aside in accordance with law, it is not legally permissible. It is further held that demarcation may vary from person to person and it is not possible to say that the latter demarcation is correct unless earlier demarcation is proved to be wrong and erroneous. Similar view has been taken by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.40 of 1991, titled C.R.Premi Vs. State of H.P., Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1991 titled Sukh Ram and others Vs. State of H.P. Criminal Appeal No.39 of 91 titled Balbir Singh Vs. State of H.P. Criminal Appeal No.45 of 91 titled Davinder Singh Vs. State of H.P., which have been otherwise taken note by learned trial Court in the impugned judgments.
58. None of the witnesses, as discussed hereinabove, succeeded in proving that trees from government forest were felled by the accused and there was a conspiracy amongst the accused from felling trees from government forest.
Most importantly, there is no evidence, which can compel this Court to infer that there was an agreement amongst the accused for illicit felling of the trees, if it is so, no illegality can be said to have been committed by trial Court while ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 46 acquitting accused of the charge framed against them under Section 120-B of IPC. There is no evidence direct or circumstantial to suggest that any of the accused officials/officers gained peculiar advantage or by corrupt illegal means .
or otherwise abusing his position as public servant, obtained for himself or co-
accused any pecuniary advantage. There is no evidence on record that accused CR Premi, the then, DFO allowed sale and purchase of timber trees between accused Bhup Singh son of Dhiraj and approver Mishru Mal after commencement of H.P. Forest produce (Regulation and Trade)Act 1982.
of Though, material available on record reveals that Bhup Singh purchased timber from Mishru Mal, but same was in respect of private sale trees and for that rt purpose, no permission of CR Premi was given. Similarly, there is no credible evidence that Kewal Ram Chauhan, Virender Singh Chauhan , Bhup Singh son of Jalpu Ram, Bhup Singh S/o Dheeraj Singh, Gauri Mal and Kedar Singh felled, converted and transported the forest Forest Produce illegally extracted from Government Forest, DPF, Shilla and Government land. If the entire evidence led on record is read in conjunction, it can nowhere be concluded that prosecution succeeded in proving illicit falling by the accused persons in government land/government forest.
59. As has been observed hereinabove, mere intent alone does constitute crime, if any, punishable under Section 120-B of IPC, rather accused apart from having intention to commit a crime must join hands with persons having the same intention. There is no evidence led on record by the prosecution to prove that two or more persons agreed to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. To establish conspiracy, prosecution is required to ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 47 establish an agreement between the parties, however, in the instant case such evidence is totally missing.
60. Leaving everything aside, version put forth by material prosecution .
witnesses, if read in conjunction, certainly compels this Court to agree with the contention of learned Senior counsel representing the appellants that there are material contradictions and inconsistences in the statements of prosecution witnesses and as such, they otherwise could not have been placed much reliance by the court below while ascertaining the guilt of the accused.
of
61. By now it is well settled that in a criminal trial evidence of the eye witness requires a careful assessment and needs to be evaluated for its creditability.
rt Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that since the fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the well established principle that "no man is guilty until proved so", utmost caution is required to be exercised in dealing with the situation where there are multiple testimonies and equally large number of witnesses testifying before the Court. Most importantly, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistency in evidence amongst all the witnesses. In nutshell, it can be said that evidence in criminal cases needs to be evaluated on touchstone of consistency. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in C. Magesh and others versus State of Karnataka (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 645, wherein it has been held as under:-
"45. It may be mentioned herein that in criminal jurisprudence, evidence has to be evaluated on the touchstone of consistency. Needless to emphasis, consistency is the keyword for upholding the conviction of an accused. In this regard it is to be noted that this Court in ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 48 the case titled Surja Singh v. State of U.P. (2008)16 SCC 686: 2008(11) SCR 286 has held:-( SCC p.704, para 14) " 14. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witness is held to be creditworthy;..the probative value of such evidence .
becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation."
46. In a criminal trial, evidence of the eye witness requires a careful assessment and must be evaluated for its creditability. Since the fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the stated principle that " no man is guilty until proven so," hence utmost caution is required to be exercised in dealing with situation where there are of multiple testimonies and equally large number of witnesses testifying before the Court. There must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistence in rt evidence amongst all the witnesses.
62. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U.P v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324, has held that the omissions which amount to contradictions in the material particulars, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited. Further Hon'ble Apex Court in Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P. (2015) 7 SCC 178, has reiterated that where contradictions and variations are of a serious nature, which apparently or impliedly are destructive of the substantive case sought to be proved by the prosecution, they may provide an advantage to the accused.
63. In the present cases, there are material contradictions /inconsistencies in the prosecution case, which are fatal in nature, applying ratio of aforesaid law, we are compelled to endorse the findings of the learned trial Court, thereby acquitting the accused.
64. Having scanned the entire evidence led on record by the prosecution vis-a-vis allegations levelled against the accused in all the FIRs, we ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS 49 are unable to interfere with the judgments of acquittal recorded by learned trial Court, which otherwise appears to be based upon proper appreciation of facts as well as law, as a result whereof, all the appeals are accordingly dismissed .
alongwith pending applications, if any. Bail bond(s), if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.
(Vivek Singh Thakur)
Judge
of
(Sandeep Sharma)
January 11, 2024 Judge
(shankar)
rt
::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 20:34:30 :::CIS